In Search of the Reasonable and Prudent Person

Under Arizona law there is a presumed fear that justifies the use of deadly physical force under several conditions.

13-419. Presumptions; defense of a residential structure or occupied vehicle; exceptions; definitions

A. A person is presumed to reasonably believe that the threat or use of physical force or deadly force is immediately necessary for the purposes of sections 13-404 through 13-408, section 13-418 and section 13-421 if the person knows or has reason to believe that the person against whom physical force or deadly force is threatened or used is unlawfully or forcefully entering or has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present in the person's residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. For the purposes of sections 13-404 through 13-408, section 13-418 and section 13-421, a person who is unlawfully or forcefully entering or who has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present in a residential structure or occupied vehicle is presumed to pose an imminent threat of unlawful deadly harm to any person who is in the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

C. The presumptions in subsections A and B of this section do not apply if:

1. The person against whom physical force or deadly physical force was threatened or used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the residential structure or occupied vehicle, including an owner, lessee, invitee or titleholder, and an order of protection or injunction against harassment has not been filed against that person.

2. The person against whom physical force or deadly physical force was threatened or used is the parent or grandparent, or has legal custody or guardianship, of a child or grandchild sought to be removed from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

3. The person who threatens or uses physical force or deadly physical force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the residential structure or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.

4. The person against whom physical force or deadly physical force was threatened or used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a residential structure or occupied vehicle in the performance of official duties.

D. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.

While not very legal my answer is that I wholeheartedly think societies perception on what is reasonable, much less right or wrong, is absolutely changing.

Being judged by a group of my "peers" sounds scary as hell in this day and age.

It’s a sad reality that our legal system is built largely upon common sense and reasonable judgement, the two items which stand out as being grossly eroded tenets of societal normalcy.

What is good is that racial and sexist bias is greatly diminished as opposed to past decades.

To opine directly on the topic of the reasonable and prudent person, you have to essentially weigh out society and establish where the point is that the vast majority of people would agree that X action is acceptable where Y action is happening to prevent Z from occurring. I think it’s a fools errand to try to weigh it all out and try to reasonably justify what the reasonable and prudent person would feel is that fine line establishing legal boundary.

This topic does represent a HUGE chunk of the beauty of democracy because we as citizens are given the choice of who to put in a position of power to decide these things for us. It is the single most important reason to vote because your elected officials appoint your judges who largely control the boundaries in which law enforcement operates, but also where the line is drawn as what is reasonable. Do you want the judge who doesn’t think it’s reasonable to employ self defense until you have already been seriously injured? Do you want the judge who automatically says that use of force by police is OK? Do you want the judge who understands that a drugged up miscreant chopping his way into your home with an axe probably isn’t doing so to help you get firewood ready for the winter?

I think the perception of what is or is not reasonable has changed considerably to many people. And that change goes in both directions depending on the circumstances and the individual person. Unfortunately, what many individuals consider reasonable now days seems to frequently be dependent on the individual’s race and the races of those involved in a use of force. And it does not matter if that use of force is by a citizen or law enforcement officer.

Personally, I have seen many body or dash cam videos and those taken by bystanders where it appears that deadly force could or should have been used, but was not. Then there are the many “news worthy” instances when deadly force was used, but did not appear to be appropriate, at least according to Monday morning quarterbacks.

In general, I don’t think that society’s perception has changed overall. But, rather it is dependent on the circumstances, the amount and type of news coverage and the perception of each individual.

"Reasonable" varies widely based on a persons' perception and previous experience.
I agree, also, that society is becoming disconnected from reality and this results in reasonable, rational and intellect driven actions being outside the norm. My generally low opinion of humanity is being further debased.

luzyfuerza said:

I'm just wondering if the THR community believes that the explosion in the availability of this kind of material is also likely to change others' views, too.

Click to expand...

Quite probably so, and not always in a good way.

Only those who are present, and feel threatened, in a given situation, can articulate how and why they felt threatened. Being one who routinely reviews use-of-force videos (professionally), I know how easy it is to criticize the actions of those involved. It is often difficult to apply the "reasonable officer" standard, especially because sometimes when one has the 360-degree view of events, one still cannot reliably and 100% of the time comprehend what went through the mind of the individual facing the threat. And quite often, video rarely conveys all the little nuances of an incident, from small, barely perceptible movements to non-verbal threats and cues.

If someone is running at you with a club, axe or knife, or is pointing a gun at you, is it reasonable to believe you're in danger of serious bodily harm or death?